RAJENDRA PRASAD CHAURASIYA Vs. HAZARI LAL MALLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendant Rajendra Prasad Chaurasiya is set against the judgment and decree of Additional Commissioner dated 24-4-1996, decreeing the suit of Hazari Lal Mallah, plaintiff, on a review petition which stems out of an action under Sec. 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) The facts as per exposition in the pleadings are : On 11-6-1992 Hazari Lal Mallan institute a lawsuit under Sec. 229-B Z.A. Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class Chail, Allahabad. He avers the land in question is acquisition of his father Panna Lal and grand-father Surya alias Lallu Mallah. His father Panna Lal was and after his demise he is continuing in possession. That neither his maternal uncle Kanbai Lal since dead, nor his sons, defendants 2 to 5, have any concern whatsoever. The had never been let into possession. His father had ancestral land in village Nai Jhusi, tehsil Phulpur, and mostly lived there. The land in question so often was submerged in rainy water and he would grow singhara; but over against some area gone strictly dry he would raise seasonal crops. When father had lost vitality because of old age he gave maternal uncle Kanhaiya Lal the facility to grow Singhara. The latter did carry out this and rendered an account of the produce to father Panna Lal and thereafter to him. In this while Kanhaiya Lal with utter dishonest intention got his name surreptitiously entered in revenue records. Having done this he executed a sale-deed in 13-12-1968 in favour of Rajendra Prasad Chaurasia, defendant here. As no title had vested in vendor Kanhaiya Lal, contesting defendant. R.P. Chaurasia gets no right title and interest in suit. Also he is not in possession. The entry secured in revenue records through skillful manouver has no force or legal validity. The sale is ab-initio void and inoperative. On 12-3-1992 he became aware of conveyance and bad taken immediate steps to secure his interest by dispatching a notice under Sec. 80 C. P. C. to State of U. P. and after the lapse of statutory period the lawsuit. The relief of a declaration that he is a Bhumidhar tenant in possession is prayed for.

(3.) On 4-8-1992 a written statement by Rajendra Prasad Chaurasia in total denial of allegation. It is alleged Hazari Lal Mallah had no right, title or interest in land. He is not in possession. Also the assertion is correct that he became aware of sale-deed on 12-3-1992 which was executed on 13-12-1968. The additional plea is casting serious aspiration on plaintiff and his father Panna Lals tall claim. Kanhaiya Lal was not maternal uncle of Parma Lal. He was himself a tenant as Zamindar has settled tho land in his favour in the year 1963. In time Kanhaiya Lal became a Sirdar tenant and had acquired the sanad Bhumidhari. On 13-12-1968 he executed the sale and since then his title and possession continues apace. In the alternative Kanhaiya Lal had perfected title through possession and the right to recover it has gone beyond recall. Under Sec. 180 (2) U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 he became a hereditary tenant and thence a Sirdar consequent to the abolition of Zamindari. Also he is entitled to advantage pastulated under Sec. 41 Transfer of Property Act. In an action under U. P. Urban Ceiling Act, he had agitated his right and by the order of Prescribed Authority dated 11-6-1979 his title to land is acknowledged; the land is cleared off from the trammels of Ceiling Act. The relief to dismiss the suit is prayed for.